Notes on additional comments, ACL2 Seminar 9/13/07, on what it takes
to be a successful academic:
J said that for tenure at UT, it's important to have been on PCs of
good conferences. Being in charge of local arrangements or a general
chair is of course also desirable, and such things are critical for
promotion to full professor. This is all about giving evidence of the
high regard you're held in, rather than evidence of service per se.
Matt gave his view that it's helpful for Ph.D. research to pick
tractable problems -- if you're stuck with a fuzzy feeling then maybe
you need a narrower scope. He added that, paradoxically, even with a
nice crisp problem one is bound to get stuck sometimes -- if you never
find the going tough then it probably isn't research! J agreed, and
added that when he's stuck on a problem for a few weeks, he puts the
problem aside, then later sometimes a solution just comes to him when
he's not thinking about the problem. He said that for this to happen,
it's critical that he's already fully absorbed the problem -- without
the intense thought and deep understanding already gained, the
solution would not have come.
Interestingly, the brief discussion above was almost all that was said
about the research process per se. Most of the focus was generally on
picking problems that interest you, serving on committees, finding
satisfaction in teaching and mentoring, getting a mentor, and such
topics, all critical issues for faculty. At one point Matt asked
Warren and J their opinion on how many hours per week a faculty member
might typically work, since it sounded like there's lots to do. J
suggested that it could be at least 60 hours per week. He drew an
analogy to other professions, like law and medicine -- it's not about
just putting in a workweek.